ARCHIVED – Initial Labour Market Outcomes: A Comprehensive Look at the Employment Experience of Recent Immigrants during the First Four Years in Canada

Li Xue
Strategic Research and Statistics
Research and Evaluation
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
February 2008

The completion of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC) provides a unique opportunity to capture initial settlement and integration experiences of recent immigrants who landed in Canada from October 2000 to September 2001. The longitudinal nature of the LSIC enables researchers to examine the dynamics of the whole adaptation process in the first 4 years in Canada.The results from the first two waves of the LSIC showed that as time went on, the LSIC immigrants had made considerable progress in the Canadian labour market. The current report takes a comprehensive look at the employment outcomes of these immigrants during their first four years in Canada, with the focus on transitions in the labour market over time.


Initial Labour Market Outcomes: A Comprehensive Look at the Employment Experience of Recent Immigrants during the First Four Years in Canada
[ PDF Version (PDF, 545.7KB) ]


Table of contents


Introduction

Employment is not only a critical step for most immigrants integrating into the host society, but also provides a key indicator of success in immigrant settlement and integration. Research shows that the economic outcomes of recent immigrants deteriorated after 2000.1 Results from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) 2006 further show that while established immigrants (those who landed more than 10 years ago) had comparable labour market outcomes compared to the Canadian-born population, very recent immigrants (those who landed in Canada for five years or less) had the poorest outcomes in the Canadian labour market.2  This points to the need to better understand the early labour market experience of recent immigrants.

The completion of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC)3 provides a unique opportunity to capture initial settlement and integration experiences of recent immigrants who landed in Canada from October 2000 to September 2001. The longitudinal nature of the LSIC enables researchers to examine the dynamics of the whole adaptation process in the first 4 years in Canada.

The results from the first two waves of the LSIC showed that as time went on, the LSIC immigrants had made considerable progress in the Canadian labour market.4 The current report takes a comprehensive look at the employment outcomes of these immigrants during their first four years in Canada, with the focus on transitions in the labour market over time.

All immigrants includes a small number of immigrants who landed in categories not listed in the table.

Highlights of the report include:

  1. More than eight in 10 (84%) immigrants participated in the labour force during the 24 months between two years and four years after landing. Nearly seven in 10 (68%) were employed by four years after arrival.
  2. The employment rates for all immigration categories increased with time spent in Canada. Skilled worker principal applicants had the highest rate throughout the first four years. Refugees and skilled worker spouses and dependants made the greatest gains in terms of employment growth.
  3. The proportion of immigrants who reported encountering problems finding work decreased with time. Lack of Canadian experience, problems with recognition of foreign qualifications or work experience and language barriers were the top difficulties entering labour market during the first four years.
  4. Labour force characteristics varied with gender and age. Male newcomers and those in prime-working age fared better.
  5. Labour market performance differed by province of residence and country of origin. Immigrants who settled in the Prairies outperformed those who resided in other provinces. Immigrants who came from the Philippines and Romania made the greatest gains in the labour market.
  6. Knowledge of official languages, especially English, was associated with better labour market outcomes.
  7. On average, it took about 6 months for immigrants to get their first job. About eight in 10 employed immigrants worked full time throughout the first four years.
  8. The occupational distribution shifted towards professional work and higher skill levels jobs. The proportion of newcomers working in their intended occupations showed little change.
  9. Four years after landing, about half (48%) of the employed immigrants worked in a field related to their education. Nearly six in 10 (58%) reported using their skills or specializations adequately.
  10. Overall job satisfaction increased over time. Compared with prior to landing, 45% reported better and 26% felt the same. The majority (55%) of the LSIC immigrants reported that their employment situation four years after arrival was better than two years after arrival.

Definitions of labour force statistics in the paper

Labour force: The labour force consists of the LSIC immigrants aged 15 and over who had been employed or unemployed (that is, those who did not work but had been actively looking for work) during a specific period (Wave 1- six months from landing to six months after landing; Wave 2 - 18 months from six months to two years after landing; Wave 3 - 24 months from two to four years of landing).
Not in the labour force: The LSIC immigrants who had not been employed or looked for a job during a specific period (Wave 1- six months from landing to six months after landing, Wave 2 - 18 months from six months to two years after landing and Wave 3 - 24 months from two to four years of landing).
Participation rate: The number of the LSIC immigrants in the labour force over the total number of the LSIC immigrants aged 15 and over (i.e. the overall LSIC population).
Employment rate: The number of currently employed LSIC immigrants over the total number of the LSIC immigrants aged 15 and over (i.e. the overall LSIC population).
Unemployment rate: The number of the LSIC immigrants who are currently unemployed over the total number of the LSIC immigrants in the labour force.
Comparability with the Labour Force Survey (LFS): The definition of labour force here is not directly comparable to the LFS definition, as the reference period is not comparable (the LFS uses a four-week search period). Accordingly, the participation rates and unemployment rates in the current paper are likely to be overestimated compared to the LFS results.

Top of Page

Looking for employment

During the 24 months between two and four years after landing, nearly half (49%) of the LSIC immigrants looked for work (Table 1). Compared to the proportions during the first six months in Canada at 71% and 58% two years after landing, this large decrease looking for work was accompanied by increases in employment and job satisfaction levels.5 This may indicate that more newcomers were content with their current employment and therefore less involved in job searching activities.

All immigration classes except refugees had decreasing proportions of immigrants who reported finding work as time went on. Family class immigrants and other economic immigrants were less likely to look for jobs during Wave 3 (38% and 34% respectively). Refugees were the only group among all categories that did not experience constant decline in job search over time. After peaking at 59% during the 18-month period from six months to two years after landing, job hunting for refugees declined to 52% during the period from two years after landing to four years after landing. Compared to 46% during the first six months, the proportion of refugees who looked for jobs increased substantially after the initial months. A large number of refugees (73%) actively took part in educational courses and language training during the first six-month period in Canada,6 the labour market participation increased considerably after the initial months.

Table 1: Looked for employment, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
All immigrants 42,615 54,527 40,016 9,835 9,741 157,615
Immigrants who looked for employment
  Wave 1 62% 92% 65% 49% 46% 71%
  Wave 2 47% 69% 58% 42% 59% 58%
  Wave 3 38% 57% 52% 34% 52% 49%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Looking at the job search methods used by immigrants four years after landing (Table 2), searching the internet was the most commonly used method (58%), followed by networking through friends or relatives (46%), contacting employers directly (38%), answering newspaper ads (37%) and consulting with employment agency (22%).

The popularity of job search methods varied across immigration categories. For economic immigrants (skilled worker principal applicants, skilled worker spouses and dependants and other economic immigrants), searching the internet was the most popular method to look for a job while contacting through friends and relatives was the second most popular channel to find employment. In contrast, immigrants in family class and refugees were more likely to use personal networks to get a job (54% and 61%, respectively). This result may be explained by the education and age disparities among different classes. Studies indicate that internet usage rates are associated with higher education and age: Canadian adults with at least some post-secondary education and aged 18 to 44 were much more likely to use the internet, compared to those with less education and those aged older.7 Thus the higher education attainment and the concentration in the age group of prime working age from 25 to 44 of economic immigrants compared to family class and refugees may explain the higher usage of internet for job search.

Table 2: How to look for employment, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
Main job search methods Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
All immigrants 42,615 54,527 40,016 9,835 9,741 157,615
Immigrants who looked for employment 16,328 31,137 20,920 3,320 5,081 77,328
Job search methods
Contacting potential employer(s) directly 41% 36% 38% 33% 53% 38%
Through friend(s)/relatives 54% 41% 44% 41% 61% 46%
Placing or answering newspaper ad(s) 37% 38% 35% 39% 33% 37%
Consulting with employment agency 20% 26% 22% 11% 19% 22%
Searching the internet 36% 76% 56% 45% 32% 58%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

There are slight differences in the methods of finding employment between genders (Table 3). Compared to their male counterparts, female newcomers were less likely to search on the internet for jobs: 49% and 52%, two and four years after landing, compared to 61% and 62% for males. This result is consistent with the differences among immigration categories. There was no significant distinction in the usage of other means to look for employment between male and female immigrants.

Table 3: How to find employment, by gender, Wave 2 and 3 1
Main methods of finding employment Male   Female  
All immigrants 78,003 79,612
Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 2 Wave 3
Immigrants who looked for employment    49,768 42,426 41,647 34,902
Job search methods    
  Contacting potential employer(s) directly 48% 38% 46% 39%
  Through friend(s)/relatives 52% 48% 52% 44%
  Placing or answering newspaper ad(s) 56% 36% 53% 37%
  Consulting with employment agency 31% 22% 25% 22%
  Searching the internet 61% 62% 49% 52%

1 In Wave 1, the question of how to find work was asked of Longitudinal Respondents (LRs) who have been employed but have had at least on jobless spell of longer than 7 consecutive days and who are currently working, while in Wave 2 and 3, the question was asked of all LRs. Considering the incomparability of Wave 1 results, only Wave 2 and 3 results are shown for comparison.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Difficulties in finding employment

While a large number of immigrants reported that they had difficulties finding employment, the proportion decreased with time (Table 4). Six months after landing, 70% newcomers who tried to find work reported having problems. Two years after landing, this proportion dropped slightly to 68% and further decreased to 59% four years after landing.

Table 4: Had problems finding employment, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Wave 1            
Immigrants who looked for employment 26,461 49,909 26,111 4,823 4,505 112,652
Immigrants who had problems finding employment 14,680 37,873 19,752 2,682 3,060 78,352
55% 76% 76% 56% 68% 70%
Wave 2            
Immigrants who looked for employment 20,091 37,512 23,346 4,128 5,736 91,414
Immigrants who had problems finding employment 11,740 27,415 16,697 2,365 3,959 62,454
58% 73% 72% 57% 69% 68%
Wave 3            
Immigrants who looked for employment 16,328 31,137 20,920 3,320 5,081 77,328
Immigrants who had problems finding employment 8,155 20,066 12,626 1,732 3,069 45,908
  50% 64% 60% 52% 60% 59%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Among all immigration categories, skilled worker principal applicants had the highest proportion reporting problems finding employment throughout the first four years. Four years after landing, 64% of skilled worker principal applicants who had looked for work, reported encountering problems, closely followed by skilled worker spouses and dependants (60%), refugees (60%) and family class immigrants (50%). This result complements the research finding that by the early 2000s, skilled worker immigrants were more likely to encounter deteriorating economic outcomes, particularly than their family class counterparts.8 The downturn in the IT sector after 2000 might be a partial explanation, as the share of skilled workers in IT and related occupations was large.

Although skilled workers, both principal applicants and spouses and dependants, had the highest proportions reporting difficulties in finding work, there was a declining trend as time went on. For immigrants who landed in other categories, the proportion of immigrants who reported encountering employment barriers increased a bit two years after landing compared to six months in Canada, and then dropped substantially four years after landing. The results show that the LSIC immigrants had overcome some labour market barriers as time went on, though the initial period still presented challenges for most of them.

Looking at the most serious problem for the LSIC immigrants in finding employment over time reveals some patterns (Figure 1). Lack of job experience in Canada was the most cited serious problem for newcomers when looking for jobs throughout the first four years in Canada. Foreign work experience or qualifications recognition problem was reported by immigrants as the second most serious problem in finding work while language problems remained a problem four years after landing. Lack of job opportunities, connections and jobs in the fields of study were also commonly reported barriers by newcomers trying to enter the labour market.

Figure 1: The most serious problems finding employment, Wave 1, 2 and 3

The most serious problems finding employment,  Wave 1, 2 and 3
6 months after landing 2 years after landing 4 years after landing
Foreign experience or qualifications not accepted 24% 19% 19%
Language problems 20% 15% 15%
Not enough job experience in Canada 26% 28% 19%
Not enough jobs available 8% 14% 12%
No jobs in fields of training 3% 6% 7%
No connections in the job market 5% 5% 9%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Foreign credential recognition problems were particularly pertinent for skilled worker principal applicants. Four years after arrival, 23% of this group cited difficulties getting foreign experience or qualifications recognized as the most serious problem entering the Canadian labour market. Family class immigrants and skilled worker spouses and dependants faced similar employment barriers. A higher proportion of skilled worker spouses and dependants reported lack of recognition of foreign qualifications and experience as a serious problem four years after landing.

The share of immigrants reporting language problems as the most serious barrier in entering the labour market decreased over time for almost all immigration categories. However, for refugees and other economic immigrants, language problems were more common. For example, four years after landing, the proportion of refugees reporting language barriers as the most serious problem in finding employment, though dropped significantly from 43% at six months after landing, was still large at 25% for this group.

Table 5: Most serious problems in finding employment, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Wave 1            
Immigrants who had problems finding employment 14,680 37,873 19,752 2,682 3,060 78,352
Most serious problems in finding employment
  Language problems 28% 13% 23% 38% 43% 20%
  Foreign qualifications or   experience not accepted 16% 29% 25% 11% 11% 24%
  Not enough job experience in   Canada 24% 28% 27% 19% 19% 26%
  Not enough jobs available 7% 10% 7% 7%E 7%E 8%
Wave 2            
Immigrants who had problems finding employment 11,740 27,415 16,697 2,365 3,959 62,454
Most serious problems in finding employment
  Language problems 21% 9% 19% 20% 29% 15%
  Foreign qualifications or   experience not accepted 10% 24% 19% 9% 10% 19%
  Not enough job experience in   Canada 27% 27% 29% 23% 28% 28%
  Not enough jobs available 15% 16% 11% 15% 9% 14%
Wave 3            
Immigrants who had problems finding employment 8,155 20,066 12,626 1,732 3,069 45,908
Most serious problems in finding employment
  Language problems 18% 10% 18% 22% 25% 15%
  Foreign qualifications or   experience not accepted 12% 23% 18% 10% 17% 19%
  Not enough job experience in   Canada 20% 18% 21% 19% 14% 19%
  Not enough jobs available 10% 13% 11% 14% 12% 12%

E Use with caution.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Employment to population ratio increased constantly

Despite a number of barriers entering the Canadian labour market, the LSIC immigrants made great gains in terms of the employment growth over time. Figure 2 shows the weekly employment to population ratio for the LSIC immigrants by category during the first four years. For all immigrants, the employment to population ratio increased constantly from 45% at six months after landing to 59% at two years and 68% at four years after arrival. This rate caught up with and surpassed the Canadian average employment rate of 62.7% in 2005.9

Figure 2: Employment to population ratio by weeks after landing, by immigration category

Employment to population ratio by weeks after  landing, by immigration category
Week # Family Class Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees All Immigrants
0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
1 3.4% 9.1% 1.8% 6.1% 1.2% 5.0%
2 7.0% 13.1% 3.3% 8.5% 2.4% 8.0%
3 10.5% 16.8% 6.1% 9.7% 4.2% 11.2%
4 13.5% 20.0% 8.5% 10.9% 6.6% 14.0%
5 17.2% 23.9% 10.4% 13.7% 7.2% 17.1%
6 20.3% 27.9% 12.7% 16.1% 8.7% 20.2%
7 22.5% 30.9% 15.2% 17.6% 9.5% 22.7%
8 24.4% 34.4% 17.3% 18.2% 11.1% 25.0%
9 26.9% 37.6% 18.9% 19.2% 11.4% 27.3%
10 28.6% 40.7% 20.7% 20.4% 12.5% 29.5%
11 29.8% 43.0% 22.6% 21.0% 14.0% 31.2%
12 31.3% 45.2% 24.3% 21.1% 15.3% 32.9%
13 32.4% 47.4% 25.7% 21.3% 15.2% 34.3%
14 34.3% 50.0% 27.1% 21.6% 16.0% 36.2%
15 35.0% 51.6% 28.1% 22.4% 17.1% 37.3%
16 36.1% 53.1% 29.0% 22.9% 19.0% 38.5%
17 36.6% 54.2% 30.0% 22.8% 19.2% 39.3%
18 37.2% 55.5% 30.9% 23.1% 19.3% 40.1%
19 37.9% 56.8% 31.5% 23.5% 19.8% 41.0%
20 38.9% 57.5% 32.4% 24.5% 20.7% 41.8%
21 39.9% 58.2% 32.9% 26.0% 20.4% 42.6%
22 40.2% 59.0% 33.5% 27.0% 21.4% 43.3%
23 40.2% 59.5% 34.4% 27.2% 22.0% 43.7%
24 41.4% 60.6% 35.2% 27.6% 22.8% 44.7%
25 41.8% 60.9% 35.7% 28.8% 23.7% 45.1%
26 42.3% 61.8% 36.4% 29.2% 24.0% 45.8%
27 42.9% 63.0% 36.7% 29.6% 23.7% 46.5%
28 43.1% 63.8% 37.5% 30.3% 23.7% 47.1%
29 43.3% 64.2% 38.1% 31.2% 23.8% 47.5%
30 43.9% 64.8% 38.2% 31.8% 25.1% 48.0%
31 43.7% 65.5% 38.9% 31.9% 25.3% 48.4%
32 43.8% 65.8% 39.0% 31.9% 25.3% 48.6%
33 43.8% 66.5% 38.9% 32.2% 25.2% 48.8%
34 44.3% 66.4% 39.0% 32.7% 25.3% 49.0%
35 44.8% 66.8% 39.2% 33.2% 25.8% 49.3%
36 44.7% 67.4% 39.5% 34.4% 25.9% 49.7%
37 45.0% 67.7% 40.0% 34.7% 26.5% 50.1%
38 45.0% 67.8% 40.9% 35.2% 26.5% 50.3%
39 45.2% 68.4% 41.0% 35.8% 26.4% 50.6%
40 45.2% 68.5% 41.5% 36.7% 27.1% 50.9%
41 45.2% 68.3% 41.9% 36.9% 27.3% 51.0%
42 45.4% 68.5% 42.1% 37.1% 28.2% 51.2%
43 45.0% 68.6% 42.5% 37.3% 28.8% 51.3%
44 45.6% 68.9% 43.3% 37.9% 28.2% 51.7%
45 45.8% 69.2% 43.5% 37.9% 28.0% 51.9%
46 45.8% 69.9% 43.9% 38.6% 28.2% 52.3%
47 45.8% 69.8% 44.1% 38.2% 28.2% 52.3%
48 46.2% 70.4% 44.0% 38.3% 28.9% 52.7%
49 46.2% 70.8% 44.2% 38.7% 29.7% 52.9%
50 46.2% 71.1% 45.0% 39.5% 30.4% 53.3%
51 45.9% 71.4% 45.2% 39.9% 30.8% 53.5%
52 45.9% 71.6% 45.6% 40.3% 30.9% 53.7%
53 46.3% 71.7% 45.6% 41.1% 31.3% 53.9%
54 46.9% 71.6% 45.5% 40.9% 31.8% 54.0%
55 47.2% 71.7% 46.1% 41.3% 33.0% 54.4%
56 47.5% 71.8% 46.2% 41.0% 33.1% 54.5%
57 47.7% 72.2% 46.1% 41.1% 33.7% 54.7%
58 47.9% 72.1% 46.2% 41.6% 34.5% 54.8%
59 47.9% 72.0% 46.5% 41.8% 34.9% 54.9%
60 47.5% 72.2% 46.6% 42.1% 35.1% 54.9%
61 47.7% 72.5% 46.9% 42.4% 35.7% 55.2%
62 48.1% 72.3% 46.7% 42.4% 35.5% 55.2%
63 48.2% 72.6% 46.9% 42.8% 36.3% 55.4%
64 48.3% 73.2% 46.9% 43.6% 36.6% 55.8%
65 48.3% 73.1% 47.0% 44.6% 36.9% 55.8%
66 48.6% 73.4% 46.8% 45.1% 37.3% 56.0%
67 48.5% 73.6% 47.1% 45.8% 37.3% 56.2%
68 48.6% 73.3% 47.5% 46.1% 37.6% 56.3%
69 48.5% 73.1% 48.0% 46.2% 38.3% 56.3%
70 48.5% 73.1% 48.2% 46.9% 38.3% 56.4%
71 48.6% 72.9% 48.3% 47.2% 38.4% 56.4%
72 48.7% 72.7% 48.4% 47.4% 38.4% 56.4%
73 48.7% 73.4% 48.5% 47.7% 38.6% 56.7%
74 48.7% 73.6% 48.6% 47.3% 38.7% 56.8%
75 48.4% 73.9% 48.8% 47.5% 39.3% 56.9%
76 48.2% 74.0% 49.0% 47.0% 38.9% 56.9%
77 48.3% 74.3% 49.0% 47.4% 38.7% 57.0%
78 48.5% 74.5% 48.8% 47.9% 39.3% 57.2%
79 48.6% 74.2% 49.0% 48.6% 38.9% 57.2%
80 48.7% 74.3% 48.5% 48.5% 38.9% 57.1%
81 48.9% 74.6% 48.5% 49.0% 38.9% 57.3%
82 49.3% 74.6% 48.5% 48.7% 39.5% 57.5%
83 49.3% 74.7% 48.8% 47.9% 40.0% 57.6%
84 49.5% 75.0% 49.2% 47.7% 40.2% 57.8%
85 49.8% 75.3% 49.0% 48.3% 40.3% 58.0%
86 49.7% 75.3% 48.7% 48.4% 40.2% 57.9%
87 50.0% 75.4% 48.9% 48.8% 40.3% 58.1%
88 49.6% 75.3% 49.0% 49.1% 40.3% 58.0%
89 49.7% 75.3% 49.1% 48.8% 41.0% 58.1%
90 49.7% 75.5% 49.3% 48.7% 40.7% 58.1%
91 49.8% 75.0% 49.7% 48.9% 41.9% 58.2%
92 49.8% 74.8% 50.1% 48.9% 42.2% 58.2%
93 49.9% 74.8% 50.4% 49.4% 42.3% 58.4%
94 50.0% 75.0% 50.6% 49.7% 42.4% 58.6%
95 49.8% 75.2% 50.3% 49.7% 42.8% 58.5%
96 49.7% 75.3% 50.6% 49.5% 43.1% 58.6%
97 49.7% 75.0% 50.8% 50.0% 42.8% 58.6%
98 49.8% 74.9% 50.6% 50.2% 43.1% 58.5%
99 49.8% 74.8% 50.4% 50.5% 43.9% 58.5%
100 49.7% 74.5% 51.1% 50.9% 44.6% 58.7%
101 49.7% 74.3% 51.5% 51.1% 44.7% 58.7%
102 50.0% 74.5% 51.6% 51.5% 44.7% 58.9%
103 49.9% 74.3% 51.5% 52.0% 45.0% 58.8%
104 50.0% 74.4% 51.8% 52.3% 45.3% 59.0%
105 50.1% 74.5% 52.3% 53.2% 45.1% 59.2%
106 50.0% 74.7% 52.5% 52.8% 45.5% 59.3%
107 50.0% 74.8% 52.6% 52.5% 45.3% 59.3%
108 50.6% 74.9% 52.4% 52.0% 45.6% 59.5%
109 50.6% 75.1% 52.5% 51.2% 45.7% 59.5%
110 50.6% 75.1% 52.8% 51.3% 45.4% 59.6%
111 50.7% 75.5% 53.2% 51.5% 45.7% 59.9%
112 50.8% 75.5% 53.5% 51.8% 45.9% 60.0%
113 50.7% 75.7% 53.5% 52.2% 45.8% 60.1%
114 50.9% 75.3% 54.1% 52.8% 46.5% 60.2%
115 50.9% 75.6% 54.1% 53.7% 46.5% 60.4%
116 51.0% 76.1% 54.0% 54.4% 46.5% 60.6%
117 50.9% 76.5% 54.4% 54.2% 46.9% 60.8%
118 50.9% 76.6% 54.6% 54.8% 47.1% 61.0%
119 51.2% 76.7% 55.1% 55.2% 47.7% 61.3%
120 51.2% 77.3% 55.0% 55.4% 48.8% 61.5%
121 51.2% 77.4% 54.7% 56.0% 49.5% 61.6%
122 51.1% 77.4% 54.9% 56.5% 49.0% 61.6%
123 51.2% 77.5% 55.1% 56.5% 49.3% 61.7%
124 51.5% 77.7% 55.1% 56.6% 49.3% 61.9%
125 51.4% 77.8% 55.5% 57.1% 49.3% 62.0%
126 51.3% 77.9% 55.6% 57.3% 48.8% 62.1%
127 51.4% 78.0% 55.6% 57.3% 49.0% 62.1%
128 51.5% 77.9% 55.8% 57.7% 49.3% 62.2%
129 51.4% 78.0% 55.8% 57.6% 49.5% 62.2%
130 51.2% 77.6% 56.2% 57.6% 49.8% 62.1%
131 51.0% 77.6% 56.1% 57.8% 49.9% 62.1%
132 51.1% 77.5% 56.1% 57.3% 49.8% 62.1%
133 51.4% 77.8% 56.2% 57.5% 50.3% 62.3%
134 51.1% 77.7% 56.6% 57.9% 50.3% 62.3%
135 51.3% 77.6% 56.7% 58.3% 50.9% 62.4%
136 51.4% 77.7% 56.4% 57.8% 50.9% 62.4%
137 51.6% 77.8% 56.3% 57.6% 50.7% 62.4%
138 51.6% 78.1% 56.5% 57.7% 50.6% 62.6%
139 51.6% 78.0% 56.5% 58.3% 50.4% 62.6%
140 51.5% 78.1% 56.8% 57.9% 50.6% 62.6%
141 51.4% 78.0% 56.9% 58.3% 51.2% 62.7%
142 51.4% 78.5% 57.3% 58.5% 51.2% 62.9%
143 51.1% 78.6% 57.3% 58.9% 51.1% 62.9%
144 51.3% 78.6% 57.7% 58.9% 51.1% 63.0%
145 51.2% 78.7% 57.8% 58.4% 51.4% 63.1%
146 51.3% 78.6% 58.0% 58.3% 51.8% 63.2%
147 51.3% 78.5% 58.0% 58.4% 52.1% 63.1%
148 51.7% 78.8% 58.0% 58.8% 52.0% 63.3%
149 51.5% 79.2% 58.4% 59.1% 51.6% 63.5%
150 51.5% 79.4% 58.6% 59.2% 51.8% 63.7%
151 51.8% 80.0% 58.8% 59.3% 51.6% 64.0%
152 51.9% 79.8% 58.7% 60.0% 51.8% 64.0%
153 51.9% 79.8% 58.8% 60.8% 51.8% 64.1%
154 52.1% 79.6% 59.1% 60.5% 52.3% 64.1%
155 52.1% 79.2% 59.0% 60.1% 52.3% 63.9%
156 52.1% 79.0% 59.2% 59.6% 52.4% 63.9%
157 52.2% 79.0% 59.5% 59.7% 52.4% 64.0%
158 52.3% 79.4% 59.6% 59.6% 52.5% 64.2%
159 52.6% 79.5% 59.7% 59.5% 52.2% 64.3%
160 53.1% 79.5% 60.0% 59.6% 52.8% 64.6%
161 53.3% 79.7% 59.9% 58.9% 53.0% 64.6%
162 53.2% 79.8% 60.2% 58.9% 52.9% 64.7%
163 53.0% 80.0% 60.3% 58.9% 53.0% 64.8%
164 53.0% 80.1% 60.7% 58.8% 53.4% 64.9%
165 52.8% 80.2% 61.1% 58.8% 54.4% 65.1%
166 52.5% 80.3% 61.4% 59.2% 54.3% 65.1%
167 52.5% 80.4% 61.6% 59.6% 54.2% 65.2%
168 52.7% 80.5% 61.4% 59.7% 54.2% 65.3%
169 52.8% 80.7% 61.5% 59.8% 55.0% 65.5%
170 53.1% 80.8% 61.4% 59.8% 55.0% 65.5%
171 53.0% 80.7% 61.5% 60.4% 55.0% 65.5%
172 53.2% 80.8% 61.2% 60.8% 55.2% 65.6%
173 53.3% 80.9% 61.5% 60.6% 55.4% 65.7%
174 53.2% 81.1% 61.6% 60.0% 55.0% 65.7%
175 53.2% 81.3% 61.8% 60.1% 55.5% 65.9%
176 53.2% 81.5% 61.9% 60.5% 55.5% 66.0%
177 53.3% 81.7% 62.2% 60.7% 55.4% 66.2%
178 53.5% 81.7% 62.6% 60.5% 55.5% 66.3%
179 53.6% 82.1% 62.7% 60.6% 55.3% 66.5%
180 53.5% 82.3% 62.9% 60.9% 55.7% 66.6%
181 53.4% 82.4% 63.0% 60.7% 55.8% 66.6%
182 53.5% 82.5% 63.3% 60.9% 55.7% 66.8%
183 53.7% 82.4% 63.4% 60.9% 55.3% 66.8%
184 53.6% 82.6% 63.6% 60.9% 55.6% 66.9%
185 53.8% 82.6% 63.3% 61.2% 55.9% 66.9%
186 53.7% 82.8% 63.6% 61.4% 56.2% 67.1%
187 53.5% 82.8% 63.9% 61.8% 56.3% 67.1%
188 53.8% 83.0% 63.8% 61.6% 56.1% 67.3%
189 54.0% 82.8% 64.1% 61.6% 56.0% 67.3%
190 54.2% 82.8% 64.3% 61.2% 56.0% 67.4%
191 54.3% 82.9% 64.6% 61.2% 55.9% 67.5%
192 54.2% 83.3% 64.7% 61.4% 55.9% 67.7%
193 54.3% 83.3% 64.6% 61.4% 55.8% 67.7%
194 54.3% 83.3% 64.8% 61.7% 55.3% 67.7%
195 54.4% 83.4% 65.1% 61.2% 55.3% 67.8%
196 54.4% 83.4% 65.2% 61.2% 55.5% 67.9%
197 54.6% 83.7% 65.4% 61.6% 55.1% 68.0%
198 54.4% 83.3% 65.3% 61.7% 54.9% 67.8%
199 54.5% 83.5% 65.6% 61.5% 55.4% 68.0%
200 54.5% 83.4% 65.7% 61.3% 55.7% 68.0%
201 54.4% 83.5% 65.7% 60.1% 55.4% 67.9%
202 53.4% 81.5% 64.2% 58.9% 54.2% 66.4%
203 51.9% 79.1% 62.5% 57.4% 52.5% 64.6%
204 51.6% 78.3% 61.8% 57.5% 52.7% 64.0%
205 50.3% 77.0% 60.1% 56.2% 52.2% 62.7%
206 49.7% 74.8% 58.8% 54.0% 51.1% 61.2%
207 48.9% 73.0% 57.6% 51.9% 49.3% 59.9%
208 48.4% 70.7% 56.3% 50.3% 48.3% 58.5%
209 47.9% 68.8% 54.6% 49.8% 47.1% 57.1%
210 47.0% 66.7% 52.7% 48.2% 47.2% 55.6%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Skilled worker principal applicants were the main drivers behind the employment rate increase. During the first four years in Canada, this group had a higher-than-average employment rate at any point in time.

Despite the initial subpar performance compared to family class and other economic immigrants, skilled worker spouses and dependants managed to increase their employment rate steadily, which surpassed the rate of family class immigrants two years after landing and that of other economic immigrants three years after landing. After four years in Canada, the employment rate of skilled worker spouses and dependants reached 65%, close to the average rate of all the LSIC immigrants at 68%.

In spite of the lower employment rate compared to most of the other categories, refugees experienced the biggest gain in the labour market as time passed. As shown in Figure 2, the strongest upward trend was found in the employment rate dynamic for refugees. Three years after landing, refugees outperformed family class immigrants when looking at employment rates. In contrast, family class immigrants noted minimal gains in the employment to population ratio after large increases in the initial months in Canada.

Top of Page

Labour force statistics by immigration category

Table 6 presents labour force statistics by immigration category at the end of Wave 3. After four years in Canada, 84% of the LSIC immigrants participated in the labour force and 68% were employed. Compared to earlier periods of settlement, the participation rate and employment rate both increased substantially (Figure 3).

Table 6: Labour force statistics, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers
(PA)
Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
All immigrants 42,615 54,527 40,016 9,835 9,741 157,615
Participation rate            
  Wave 3 71% 96% 85% 78% 80% 84%
Employment rate            
  Wave 3 55% 84% 65% 62% 56% 68%
Labor force - W3 30,155 52,528 34,137 7,693 7,748 133,142
Unemployment rate            
  Wave 3 22% 13% 24% 21% 29% 19%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

It is not surprising to see that skilled worker principal applicants had the highest participation and employment rates, considering their labour market skills. The greatest gains in participation and employment rates happened for refugees. From six months to four years after landing, refugees had the largest increase in labour force participation and employment rates among all immigration categories. This result is consistent with the educational activities of this group. A large number of refugees took educational courses or language training during the initial period of settlement (73% for Wave 1, 57% for Wave 2 and 48% for Wave 3), after which this group of newcomers started to actively participate in the labour market.

Figure 3: Participation rates, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Employment rates, by immigration category, Wave  1, 2 and 3

Figure 4: Employment rates, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Participation rates, by immigration category,  Wave 1, 2 and 3

Figure 5: Unemployment rates, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Unemployment rates, by immigration category,  Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Immigration Category
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees All Immigrants
Participation rates            
Wave 1 60% 93% 63% 49% 43% 70%
Wave 2 71% 95% 79% 72% 72% 82%
Wave 3 71% 96% 85% 78% 80% 84%
Employment rate
Wave 1 41% 62% 36% 29% 22% 45%
Wave 2 50% 74% 53% 51% 45% 59%
Wave 3 55% 84% 65% 62% 56% 68%
Unemployment rate
Wave 1 32% 33% 42% 41% 49% 35%
Wave 2 29% 22% 33% 29% 37% 28%
Wave 3 22% 13% 24% 21% 29% 19%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Despite gains in the employment rate for all LSIC immigrants, increased participation of immigrants and hurdles finding employment resulted in a high unemployment rate for the LSIC immigrants. The unemployment rate four years after landing for all the LSIC immigrants was 19%, though reduced significantly compared to 37% six months after landing and 28% 24 months after landing. This was much higher than the Canadian average rate of 6.8% in 2005.10

Skilled worker principal applicants had the lowest unemployment rate at any point in time across all the three waves: 33% six months, 22% 24 months and 13% 48 months after landing. Other economic immigrants also made significant gains in the Canadian labour market, reflected by increased participation and employment rates and decreased unemployment rate compared to the levels during the first months in Canada. Refugees noted the largest declines in the unemployment rate compared to 49% six months after landing, though they still had the highest unemployment rate at 29% among all immigration categories four years after landing.

Top of Page

Age and gender disparities in labour force characteristics

There are differences in labour force characteristics among different age groups and between genders (Table 7). Female immigrants had a lower participation rate compared to their male counterparts throughout their first four years in Canada. However the gap in labour force participation was reduced from 25% at six months to 17% at four years after landing. Compared to male immigrants, female newcomers were less likely to obtain employment and this was reflected in the lower employment rates and higher unemployment rates across all three waves. Besides the gender disparity in attitudes and preferences towards the labour market, this disparity could also be explained by the gender distribution differences among immigration categories. As most of skilled worker principal applicants were male (77%) while female newcomers prevailed in family class (63%) and skilled worker spouses and dependants (75%), male immigrants were more likely to succeed in the labour market given the requirements of education and labour market skills for skilled worker principal applicants when they came in.

There are also distinctions in labour force characteristics by age group. Immigrants in the prime working age group of 25 to 44 years had the highest participation and employment rates throughout the initial four years. Four years after landing, nine in 10 in this group participated in the labour force, while slightly lower proportions of immigrants aged 15 to 24 (87%) and 45 to 64 (81%) did so. Three in four immigrants aged 25 to 44 were employed four years after landing, compared to 60% and 65% for immigrants aged 15 to 24 and 45 to 64 respectively. An unemployment rate of 17% for the prime working age group of 25 to 44 was the lowest among all age groups, compared to 31% and 20% for the groups of 15 to 24 and 45 to 64.

About one in five (22%) of immigrants of retirement age (65 and over) participated in the labour force four years after landing while only 12% found employment. Given the age disadvantage in the labour market, the unemployment rate was high for this group at 44% four years after landing.

Table 7: Labour force statistics by gender and age group, Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Labor force statistics
  Participation rate Employment rate Unemployment rate
  Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Gender            
 Male 83% 91% 93% 56% 70% 78% 32% 23% 16%
 Female 58% 72% 76% 35% 48% 58% 40% 34% 23%
           
Age group            
 15 to 24 years 57% 80% 87% 36% 50% 60% 38% 38% 31%
 25 to 44 years 78% 87% 90% 51% 64% 75% 34% 26% 17%
 45 to 64 years 63% 76% 81% 38% 56% 65% 40% 26% 20%
 65 years and older 16% 22% 22% 11%E 11%E 12% 32%E 50% 44%

E Use with caution.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Labour market performance varied with areas of residence

The geographic patterns of labour market outcomes were consistent with the results from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).11

Immigrants living in the Prairies (Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) benefited from strong local economies and had some of the best labour market outcomes among all immigrants. Continuing on the patterns presented in Wave 2 results, the Prairies showed continued improvements in Wave 3: higher participation and employment rates and lower unemployment rates. For example, four years after landing, 88% of immigrants who lived in Alberta participated in the labour force and 77% were employed, both of which were higher than any other non Prairie province. The unemployment rate at 13% for newcomers living in Alberta four years after landing ranked the lowest among all provinces.

In contrast, immigrants living in Québec faced tougher labour market conditions. After four years in Canada, immigrants who chose to live in Québec had an unemployment rate of 28%, which was well above that for all the LSIC immigrants (19%) and higher than any other province.

The labour force statistics by major CMAs (Census Metropolitan Areas) confirmed the patterns shown by the provincial results. Among the five big CMAs,12 newcomers who lived in Montréal had the lowest participation and employment rates and the highest unemployment rate four years after landing. Immigrants who resided in Calgary had the best performance in terms of the highest participation and employment rates and the lowest unemployment rate throughout the first four years.

Residing in big cities does not necessarily bring on advantages to immigrants: newcomers residing in the areas other than the largest five CMAs fared well in terms of a higher employment rate and a lower unemployment rate four years after arrival, compared to those in the largest CMAs except for Calgary.

Table 8: Labour force statistics by province of residence and selected Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs), Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Participation rate Employment rate Unemployment rate
  Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
Canada 70% 82% 84% 45% 59% 68% 35% 28% 19%
           
Province of residence 1            
  Atlantic provinces 2 66% 83% 83% 47% 59% 73% 28% 29% F
  Québec 67% 75% 82% 33% 46% 59% 51% 39% 28%
  Ontario 73% 83% 85% 48% 62% 70% 33% 25% 18%
  Manitoba 75% 88% 92% 59% 72% 80% 21%E 18%E 13%E
  Saskatchewan 68%E 90%E 97%E 55%E 63%E 81%E F F F
  Alberta 75% 87% 88% 58% 66% 77% 24% 24% 13%
  BC 64% 80% 82% 40% 57% 66% 38% 29% 20%
           
Census Metropolitan Area (CMA)            
  Toronto 74% 83% 85% 50% 62% 70% 33% 25% 18%
  Montréal 68% 76% 81% 32% 45% 58% 53% 41% 28%
  Vancouver 63% 80% 82% 38% 57% 66% 39% 29% 20%
  Calgary 76% 86% 87% 56% 65% 75% 27% 25% 13%
  Ottawa-Gatineau 71% 79% 82% 41% 56% 67% 42% 29% 19%
  Other areas 69% 82% 86% 49% 62% 72% 29% 25% 16%

1 The Territories are not listed in the table due to the extremely small number of immigrants living there.
2 Atlantic provinces refer to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.
E Use with caution.
F Too unreliable to be released.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Country of origin was significant

While immigrants from all world areas made significant progress in the labour market in terms of higher employment rates and lower unemployment rates over time, labour force statistics also showed some variations across world areas of origin.

Four years after arrival, immigrants from Oceania and Australia, Europe and North America continued to fare well, which was shown by the higher employment rates13 and lower unemployment rates. Newcomers from South and Central America, and the Caribbean made significant gains in the Canadian labour market four years after landing. For example, the employment rate for immigrants from South and Central America increased from 41% six months after landing to 73% four years after landing, while the unemployment rate for this group dropped dramatically from 35% six months to 15% four years after landing.

Table 9: Labour force statistics, by major source areas and countries, Wave 1, 2 and 3
    Participation rate Employment rate Unemployment rate
  Number Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
World region            
  North America 1,768 70% 74% 75% 58% 68% 65% F F F
  Europe 24,038 72% 86% 88% 50% 68% 76% 31% 20% 14%
  Asia 100,619 70% 81% 84% 46% 58% 67% 34% 29% 20%
  Middle East 6,141 55% 65% 71% 29% 44% 54% 48% 32% 24%
  Africa 14,547 74% 82% 85% 37% 53% 66% 51% 36% 22%
  Caribbean and   Guayana 4,847 78% 85% 88% 53% 66% 73% 32% 23% 18%
  South and Central   America 4,703 63% 84% 86% 41% 63% 73% 35% 25% 15%E
  Ocenia and   Australia 835 83% 95% 95% 63% 86% 85% 24%E F F
           
Source country            
  China 29,492 70% 80% 84% 40% 50% 65% 43% 37% 23%
  India 24,451 80% 87% 87% 60% 67% 73% 25% 23% 16%
  Philippines 12,406 83% 90% 91% 68% 78% 83% 18% 14% 9%
  Pakistan 7,599 66% 76% 75% 43% 52% 58% 34% 32% 23%
  South Korea 6,202 52% 78% 86% 25% 56% 66% 52% 28% 23%
  Romania 4,989 82% 92% 94% 53% 74% 83% 36% 20% 12%
  Iran 4,485 56% 77% 86% 24% 48% 60% 57% 38% 30%
  Sri Lanka 3,673 58% 63% 75% 39% 39% 52% 33% 38% 31%
  Morocco 2,967 84% 80% 82% 26% 34% 56% 69% 58% 32%
  Russia 2,909 66% 82% 88% 46% 61% 70% 29% 26% 20%

E Use with caution.
F Too unreliable to be released.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

In contrast, immigrants from the Middle East had relatively weaker outcomes than other groups: four years after landing, immigrants from the Middle East had an unemployment rate of 24%, which was 5% higher than the rate of all the LSIC immigrants. Meanwhile, immigrants from Asia and Africa also had lower-than-average employment rates and higher-than-average unemployment rates.

The labour force characteristics by major source countries also exhibited different outcomes for immigrants originated from various countries. Figure 4 shows the employment and unemployment rates by main source countries over the three waves.

Figure 6: Employment rates, by major source countries, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Employment rates, by major source countries,  Wave 1, 2 and 3

Figure 7: Unemployment rates, by major source countries, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Unemployment rates, by major source countries,  Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Participation rate Employment rate Unemployment rate
  Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
China 70% 80% 84% 40% 50% 65% 43% 37% 23%
India 80% 87% 87% 60% 67% 73% 25% 23% 16%
Philippines 83% 90% 91% 68% 78% 83% 18% 14% 9%
Pakistan 66% 76% 75% 43% 52% 58% 34% 32% 23%
South Korea 52% 78% 86% 25% 56% 66% 52% 28% 23%
Romania 82% 92% 94% 53% 74% 83% 36% 20% 12%
Iran 56% 77% 86% 24% 48% 60% 57% 38% 30%
Sri Lanka 58% 63% 75% 39% 39% 52% 33% 38% 31%
Morocco 84% 80% 82% 26% 34% 56% 69% 58% 32%
Russia 66% 82% 88% 46% 61% 70% 29% 26% 20%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

While immigrants from India, the Philippines and Romania had better employment rates throughout the three waves, those from Romania, South Korea, Iran and Morocco had the strongest employment growth in the first four years in Canada. Most of the employment increase for immigrants from South Korea and Iran came from the significant increase in participation over time. Newcomers from Morocco outpaced other immigrants in employment growth, increasing their employment rate from 26% six months after landing to 56% four years after arrival, with a nearly constant participation rate at over 80% across all the three waves.

Among the top ten source countries, immigrants from the Philippines and Romania outperformed their counterparts coming from other countries in terms of lower unemployment rates. Four years after landing, the unemployment rates for these two groups were 9% and 12% respectively, which were much lower than the average rate for all the LSIC immigrants at 19%. Although the employment rate improved for immigrants from all major source countries, newcomers from Iran, Sri Lanka and Morocco had relatively poorer outcomes in comparison with immigrants from other main source countries. Four years after arrival, the unemployment rates for newcomers from these three countries were all above 30%. Immigrants from the leading source countries – China and India – fared differently in the labour market. Throughout the first four years, Indian immigrants had lower-than-average unemployment rates while Chinese immigrants had higher-than-average unemployment rates.

A number of factors could explain the differential outcomes by source country. These factors could include such things as differences in official language knowledge, recognition of credentials, category of admission and age and gender disparities.

Top of Page

Knowledge of official languages related to employment

Employment rates varied with the knowledge of official languages (Figure 5). Immigrants who could converse in English had the strongest employment outcomes exhibiting higher employment rates and lower unemployment rates throughout the three waves compared to those who could not. Bilingual newcomers also fared well in the Canadian labour market four years after landing.

The biggest gain was found for those who spoke French only. Four years after landing, immigrants who could only converse in French had an employment rate of 54%, which rose substantially from 29% six months after landing. By the final wave of interviews, the unemployment rate for those who could only converse in French was lower than that of immigrants who did not have any official language knowledge.

Looking at these results, it becomes quite clear that the poor labour market performance of immigrants in Québec influenced immigrants even if they spoke French.

Figure 8: Employment rate, by knowledge of official languages, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Employment rate, by knowledge of official  languages, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Figure 9: Unemployment rate, by knowledge of official languages, Wave 1, 2 and 3

Unemployment rate, by knowledge of official  languages, Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Employment rate Unemployment rate
  Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
English only 51% 64% 74% 32% 25% 17%
French only 29% 39% 54% 53% 44% 30%
English and French 43% 58% 68% 46% 31% 23%
No official language 28% 35% 38% 40% 38% 34%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Number and type of employment

During the first four years in Canada, 84% of the LSIC immigrants had a job or ran a business. Among them, about one in three (34%) had only one job throughout the first four years. A similar (32%) proportion of immigrants had held two jobs since landing. Nearly one in five (19%) held three jobs since coming to Canada. Only 15% immigrants held four or more jobs during the initial four years. About 25,000 (or 16%) immigrants were not employed during the initial four years in Canada.

Table 10: Number of jobs held since landing, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
All immigrants 42,615 54,527 40,016 9,835 9,741 157,615
Immigrants who had a job or business since landing 30,751 52,278 33,843 7,611 7,261 132,624
  (% of all immigrants) 72% 96% 85% 77% 75% 84%
Number of jobs held since landing
  1 34% 30% 35% 54% 42% 34%
  2 32% 33% 31% 27% 30% 32%
  3 19% 21% 19% 10% 17% 19%
  4 or more 15% 16% 14% 9%E 11% 15%

E Use with caution.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

As shown in Table 11, the distribution between full-time and part-time work status did not change much over time for all the LSIC immigrants. About eight in 10 of immigrants who were employed at the time of the interviews worked full-time (80%, 80% and 82% during Wave 1, Wave 2 and Wave 3 interviews, respectively). However, disparities exist among different immigration categories. Skilled worker principal applicants were most likely to work full-time (87%, 88% and 91% at six months, two years and four years after landing). Refugees and other economic immigrants were less likely to be employed full-time. When looking at the changes over time, refugees made gains in increasing the proportion in the full-time work from 63% at two years after landing to 71% at four years after landing. These results are consistent with the fact that refugees were largely involved in the educational courses during the initial years and might choose to work part-time to accommodate educational activities.

Table 11: Full-time / Part-time work status of current main job, by immigration category, Wave 1, 2 and 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Wave 1 --- 6 months after landing            
Immigrants currently employed      17,474 34,072 14,444 2,829 2,155 71,693
  Full-time1 77% 87% 70% 74% 69% 80%
  Part-time2 23% 13% 30% 26% 31% 20%
Wave 2 --- 2 years after landing            
Immigrants currently employed 21,254 40,512 21,105 5,007 4,398 93,077
  Full-time 79% 88% 68% 69% 63% 80%
  Part-time 20% 11% 31% 30% 36% 20%
Wave 3 --- 4 years after landing            
Immigrants currently employed 23,640 45,562 26,108 6,098 5,488 107,662
  Full-time 81% 91% 73% 69% 71% 82%
  Part-time 19% 8% 26% 30% 28% 17%

1 Refers to the immigrants working 30 hours or more per week as a proportion of all employed immigrants at the time of the interview.
2 Refers to the immigrants working less than 30 hours per week as a proportion of all employed immigrants at the time of the interview.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

On average, it took about six months for an LSIC immigrant to obtain their first Canadian job (Figure 6). It is not surprising to see that skilled worker principal applicants secured the first jobs (3.7 months) quickest among all immigration categories. Probably benefiting from the availability of a family network, family class immigrants may have had a faster access to employment (5.3 months) compared to other immigrants: it took about nine months for skilled worker spouses and dependants, 11.5 months for other economic immigrants, 14.9 months for refugees to find the first job in the Canadian labour market.

Figure 10: Number of months between landing date and the date when first job was attained, by immigration category

Number of months between  landing date and the date when first job was attained, by immigration category
Immigration category Mean
Family 5.254636
Skilled Workers (PA) 3.662538
Skilled Workers (S&D)  9.190785
Other Economic 11.51419
Refugees 14.91429
Others 2.27642
All Immigrants 6.187827

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Occupational outcomes

Table 12 lists the occupational distribution of pre-and-post migration jobs over time for the LSIC immigrants.

Before landing, of 121,200 immigrants who had worked, 27% worked in natural and applied sciences and related occupations, 16% worked in business, finance and administrative categories and 13% worked in the occupations in social science, education, government and religion services. These occupations are characterized as professional and high-skilled jobs.

Six months after landing, the occupational distribution shifted to be more concentrated in sales and services occupations (29%) and occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities (22%), which are classified as lower skilled and require lower levels of educational attainments. It appears that in the initial settlement process, new immigrants had to accept lower-skilled occupations to start.

With increased time in Canada, more immigrants found jobs in management occupations, business, finance and administrative occupations, natural and applied sciences and related occupations and health occupations, all of which are higher-skilled. The proportions of immigrants working in professional jobs were more consistent with pre-migration levels. For instance, four years after landing, 16% of the employed immigrants worked in business, finance and administrative occupations, which reached the level before landing at 16%, while six months after landing only 12% did so.

Table 12: Occupational distribution of pre-migration jobs, post-migration jobs*
  Before landing 6 months after landing 2 years after landing 4 years after landing
All immigrants employed at the time of the interview1 121,200 71,214 82,269 107,000
Occupation group
  Management Occupations 11% 3% 6% 7%
  Business, Finance and Administrative Occupations 16% 12% 14% 16%
  Natural and Applied Sciences and Related Occupations 27% 14% 16% 17%
  Health Occupations 6% 3% 4% 5%
  Occupations in Social Science, Education, Government Service     and Religion 13% 6% 6% 6%
  Occupations in Art, Culture, Recreation and Sport 3% 1% 1% 2%
  Sales and Service Occupations 11% 29% 26% 23%
  Trades, Transport and Equipment Operators and Related   Occupations 6% 7% 8% 9%
  Occupations Unique to Primary Industry 2% 2% 2% 1%
  Occupations Unique to Processing, Manufacturing and Utilities 4% 22% 16% 14%

* Post-migration jobs refer to the current main jobs at the time of the interviews only.
1 Immigrants who were employed exclude those for whom the occupation was not reported or could not be coded.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

The distribution of the skill levels of pre-migration jobs and post-migration jobs further pointed to the progress towards higher-skilled occupations of the LSIC immigrants (Table 13). Before landing, most of immigrants (81%) worked in skilled occupations which usually required university, college education or apprenticeship training (skill level O, A, B). Six months after landing, four in 10 employed immigrants worked in skilled jobs. The proportion increased to 50% two years after landing and reached 54% four years after landing. Although there was still a distance between the pre-migration level and the proportion four years after landing, the upward trend over time indicated progress with respect to high-skilled employment.

The biggest gap between pre-and-post migration jobs was found in skill level A, which generally required university education. Compared to 48% of all immigrants employed in occupations with skill level A before landing, only 23% were employed in such occupations four years after landing.

Table 13: Skill level of pre-migration jobs and post-migration jobs*
  Before
landing
6 months
after landing
2 years
after landing
4 years
after landing
All immigrants employed at the time of the interview 1 121,200 71,214 80,859 107,000
Skill level 2
  O 11% 3% 6% 7%
  A 48% 19% 22% 23%
  B 22% 18% 22% 24%
  C 16% 35% 32% 32%
  D 2% 25% 17% 14%
Skilled jobs (O, A, B) 81% 40% 50% 54%

* Post-migration jobs refer to the current main jobs at the time of the interviews only.
1 Immigrants who were employed exclude those for whom the occupation was not reported or could not be coded.
2 Skill level was decided according to the National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2001.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Gender differences existed among occupations. Four years after landing, the most common employment grouping for male immigrants was professionals in natural and applied sciences while the most common for female newcomers were clerical occupations. Compared to the situation six months after landing, fewer immigrants, both male and female, worked in lower skilled occupations such as sales and services, machine operators in manufacturing and labourers in processing, manufacturing and utilities.

Table 14: Most common occupations of post-migration jobs by gender - Wave 1, 2 and 3
Occupations1 6 months after landing 2 years after landing 4 years after landing
Male Female All Immi- grants Male Female All Immi- grants Male Female All Immi- grants
Immigrants employed at the  time of the interview 43,792 27,861 71,652 49,180 33,379 82,559 60,802 46,466 107,268
Most common occupations      
  Professional Occupations in   Natural and Applied Sciences 14% 5% 11% 15% 6% 11% 17% 6% 12%
  Clerical Occupations 6% 13% 8% 6% 13% 9% 6% 14% 9%
  Sales and Service   Occupations n.e.c.2 10% 16% 12% 7% 12% 9% 5% 10% 7%
  Machine Operators in   Manufacturing 10% 7% 9% 8% 6% 7% 8% 5% 6%
  Labourers in Processing,   Manufacturing and Utilities 7% 9% 7% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4%

1 Based on the second level (i.e. two-digit) of occupational groupings from the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).
2 not elsewhere classified
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

After four years in Canada, 35% of skilled worker principal applicants who were employed found jobs in their intended occupations. Compared to previous LSIC waves, this proportion was similar during all interviews.14

Among the top intended occupations, about half (49%) of skilled worker principal applicants who intended to work as teachers and professors were employed in this occupational group. Compared with the high share (75%) of immigrants who found jobs in this intended occupational field six months after landing, the drop in this occupation warrants additional research. This occupational group includes teaching assistants (TA) and research assistants (RA), and further breakdown revealed that the biggest drop happened with this subgroup – TAs and RAs. Six months after landing, 29% of skilled worker principal applicants intending to work as teachers and professors actually worked as TAs and RAs. This proportion declined to 18% two years after landing and to 12% four years after arrival. Considering the temporary nature of this occupation and the connection with educational participation, the decrease in the proportion may imply that while a considerable number of skilled worker principal applicants worked as TAs and RAs during their studies in the initial settlement period, more newcomers this occupation over time as a result of completing school and/or finding other employment.

Table 15: Worked in an intended occupation by selected intended occupations, skilled worker principal applicants - 4 years after landing
  Selected Intended Occupations All Intended Occupations
  Professional Occupations in Business and Finance Clerical Occupations Professional Occupations in Natural and Applied Sciences Technical Occupations Related to Natural and Applied Sciences Teachers and Professors
Skilled worker principal applicants employed at the time of the interview
- 4 years after landing1
2,820 1,574 17,865 1,946 1,987 36,351
Employed in a different than intended occupation 63% 75% 60% 84% 51% 65%
Employed in intended occupation 37% 25%E 40% 16%E 49% 35%

1 Exclude skilled worker principal applicants for whom the intended occupation was not reported or could not be coded.
E Use with caution.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Four in 10 employed skilled worker principal applicants who intended to work in the professional occupations in natural and applied sciences worked in this field. This share remained constant throughout all three waves of the LSIC. The proportion of immigrants working in professional occupations in business and finance was 37% four years after landing, which improved slightly from 34% two years after landing.

Top of Page

How education and skills were used in the employment

Employment in professional and higher-skilled occupations rose steadily over time, and as time went on, more immigrants found employment related to their education/training. Four years after landing, nearly half (48%) of all the LSIC immigrants had worked in a job related to their studies. Compared to 40% two years after landing, this result reflects a progression towards education-matched employment for these newcomers.

While skilled worker principal applicants were most likely to work in occupations related to their training, the biggest gain was found for skilled worker spouses and dependants: from 35% employed in education-matched jobs two years after landing to 47% four years after arrival. In spite of lower proportions of employment in the fields related to education or training, refugees made the most gains in terms of increases in the proportions working in education related fields over time (19% four years after landing compared to12% two years after landing).

Figure 11: Had a job related to education, by immigration category, Wave 2 vs. Wave 3

Had a job related to  education, by immigration category, Wave 2 vs. Wave 3
Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees All Immigrants
Wave 2 20% 60% 35% 32% 12% 40%
Wave 3 27% 67% 47% 35% 19% 48%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

When asked about how qualifications and skills were used in current jobs four years after landing, most employed immigrants (58%) reported skills were adequately used (Table 16). Among all immigration categories, family class immigrants were most likely to report skills adequately used (64%), while skilled workers had the lowest proportions of immigrants reporting that qualifications and skills were satisfactorily used (58% for skilled worker principal applicants and 52% for skilled worker spouses and dependants).

Table 16: How qualifications and skills were used in the current job, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Immigrants currently employed 1 23,349 45,339 26,042 6,068 5,433 106,977
How qualifications and skills were used in the job
  Adequately used 64% 58% 52% 60% 60% 58%
  Underused 36% 42% 48% 40% 40% 42%

1 Exclude those immigrants who did not respond to the question.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Job satisfaction

Figure 12: Job satisfaction, Wave 1           Figure 13: Job satisfaction, Wave 2

          

Job satisfaction, Wave 1
Job satisfaction, Wave 2

Figure 14: Job satisfaction, Wave 3

Job satisfaction, Wave 3
Job satisfaction
Wave 1
Very satisfied 21%
Satisfied 53%
Dissatisfied 20%
Very dissatisfied 5%
Wave 2
Very satisfied 23%
Satisfied 61%
Dissatisfied 13%
Very dissatisfied 2%
Wave 3
Very satisfied 25%
Satisfied 61%
Dissatisfied 12%
Very dissatisfied 1%

Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Despite that a large number of immigrants who worked in lower skilled occupations or different than intended, most immigrants were quite content with their current jobs.

The above graph shows the job satisfaction across the three waves. While the majority of the LSIC immigrants were either satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs throughout the first four years, the proportion of immigrants who reported job satisfaction increased with time (74% at six months after landing, 84% at two years after landing and 86% at four years after landing).

A further breakdown by category (Table 17) shows that family class immigrants had the highest level of job satisfaction (88%), followed closely by refugees (85%) and economic class (skilled worker principal applicants at 84%, skilled worker spouses and dependants at 85% and other economic at 85%). Among all immigration categories, skilled worker principal applicants had the highest proportion reporting that they were very satisfied with the jobs (26%).

Table 17: Current job satisfaction, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Immigrants currently employed 1 23,802 45,562 26,178 6,108 5,521 107,964
Job satisfaction
  Very satisfied 25% 26% 23% 25% 21% 25%
  Satisfied 63% 58% 62% 60% 65% 61%
  Dissatisfied 10% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12%
  Very dissatisfied F 2% 1%E F F 1%

1 Include a small number of immigrants who did not respond to the question.
E Use with caution.
F Too unreliable to be released.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Compared to the employment situation two years after landing, the majority of immigrants (55%) felt their employment situation had improved by Wave 3 (Table 18). Four in 10 felt that there was no change in their employment situation while only one in 20 reported that their situation was worse than Wave 2. Among all immigration categories, skilled worker spouses and dependants had the highest proportion reporting improved employment situation (61%) and the lowest proportion reporting a worse employment situation (4%) compared to last wave. Other economic immigrants had the lowest share reporting better employment (39%) and the highest declaring a worse situation (7%).

Table 18: Employment situation compared to last wave, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Immigrants currently employed 1 17,877 36,651 17,760 4,363 3,549 80,951
Employment situation
  Better 55% 55% 61% 39% 51% 55%
  The same 39% 40% 35% 55% 43% 40%
  Worse 6% 5% 4% 7%E 5%E 5%

1 Refer to immigrants who were currently employed at the time of the Wave 3 interview and had employed at the time of the Wave 2 interview too. Those immigrants who did not respond to the question are excluded.
E Use with caution.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Immigrants who reported better employment situations were further asked about the aspects of improved employment. The most cited factor was better salary and benefits (70%), followed by work environment (27%), better match with specialization or training (22%), opportunities for advancement or development (22%) and job security (19%). There were differences across immigration categories; skilled worker principal applicants were more likely to value the match with specialization (29%) and opportunities for development (28%) as reasons for better employment circumstances.

Table 19: Aspects of employment situation which are better compared to last wave, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Immigrants reported better employment situation 1 9,829 19,975 10,782 1,672 1,812 44,486
Better aspects of current employment
  Salary and benefits 75% 71% 67% 47% 72% 70%
  Work environment 27% 25% 29% 30% 22% 27%
  Better match with   specialization or training 14% 29% 20% 20% 9%E 22%
  Opportunities for   advancement or   development 14% 28% 21% 17% 17% 22%
  Job security 14% 21% 20% 23% 20% 19%

1 Refer to immigrants who were currently employed at the times of the Wave 3 interview and the Wave 2 interview, and reported better employment situation compared to last wave. Those immigrants who did not respond to the question are excluded.
Note: As multiple responses were allowed, the total of the percentages may exceed 100%.
E Use with caution.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

In spite of the fact that many immigrants were working in lower-skilled occupations compared to their pre-migration jobs, a large number of immigrants (45%) believed that the employment situation four years after landing was better than before landing. About three in 10 (29%) of the LSIC immigrants felt the employment situation worsened (Table 20).

Family class immigrants and refugees were most likely to report an improved situation compared to before landing (55% and 60% respectively) while skilled workers were more likely to view their employment situation as worse than pre-migration (32% and 33% for skilled worker principal applicants and skilled worker spouses and dependants respectively).

Table 20: Employment situation compared to before landing, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Immigrants currently employed 1 15,808 43,909 20,760 4,639 3,579 89,329
Employment situation
  Better 55% 41% 43% 39% 60% 45%
  The same 25% 27% 24% 35% 19% 26%
  Worse 20% 32% 33% 25% 20% 29%

1 Refers to immigrants who were currently employed at the time of the Wave 3 interview and had employed before landing too. Those immigrants who did not respond to the question are excluded.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Reasons for employment termination

During the period between two years and four years after landing, there were 67,700 employment terminations in total. The majority of these job departures were due to immigrants’ voluntary separation (67%). Skilled worker spouses and dependants were most likely to leave the jobs voluntarily (73%) while skilled worker principal applicants were most likely to encounter involuntary employment departure (39%).

Table 21: Reasons for employment termination, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Number of job terminations 1 16,065 25,443 18,041 3,311 4,445 67,657
Reasons for employment termination
   job 69% 61% 73% 67% 65% 67%
  Job came to an end 31% 39% 27% 33% 35% 33%

1 Excludes a small number of immigrants whose reason for employment ending was not reported.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

The top reasons for voluntary employment departure during the 24 months between the second wave and the third wave interviews were new job opportunities (43%), dissatisfaction with the job (14%) and schooling (14%). Of all skilled worker principal applicants who their jobs voluntarily, 57% did so because they found new jobs. Other economic immigrants, most of who were business immigrants, were more likely to depart jobs due to dissatisfaction (23%). Refugees and skilled worker spouses and dependants had higher proportions leaving work for school (20% and 19% respectively).

Table 22: Top reasons for voluntary employment departure, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Number of voluntary job departures 1 11,064 15,442 13,200 2,228 2,899 45,128
Main reasons for voluntary employment departure
  Found new job 35% 57% 37% 29% 28% 43%
  Dissatisfied with job 13% 14% 14% 23% 19% 14%
  School 12% 9% 19% 21% 20% 14%

1 Excludes a small number of immigrants whose reason for employment ending was not reported.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

The reasons for involuntary employment terminations varied across immigration categories. While refugees and family class immigrants were more likely to be subject to layoffs (45% and 42%, respectively), the most common reason for economic immigrants (skilled workers, both principal applicants and spouses and dependants, and other economic immigrants) to end a job involuntarily was the temporary nature of the job. Companies going out of business and seasonal nature of work were the two other main reasons for the LSIC immigrants to leave the jobs unwillingly.

Table 23: Top reasons for involuntary employment termination, by immigration category, Wave 3
  Immigration Category All Immigrants
  Family Skilled Workers (PA) Skilled Workers (S&D) Other Economic Refugees
Number of involuntary job departure 1 5,001 10,001 4,841 1,083 1,545 22,529
Main reasons for involuntary employment termination
  Layoff or business slowdown 42% 36% 25% 22%E 45% 35%
  Temporary job or contract ended 14%E 37% 43% 33%E 17%E 31%
  Company went out of business 7%E 10% 14% 28%E 15%E 12%
  Seasonal nature of work 20% 7% 8%E F 12%E 11%

1 Excludes a small number of immigrants whose reason for employment ending was not reported.
E Use with caution.
F Too unreliable to be released.
Source: Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, 2005.

Top of Page

Conclusions

LSIC immigrants entered Canada between October 2000 and September 2001. This coincided with the final stages of the IT boom and subsequent slowdown in the economy. Despite the “bad” timing, four years after arrival, these newly arrived immigrants made great efforts to settle, adapt and integrate into Canadian society. Among various settlement tasks, securing employment was one of the most critical steps for these LSIC newcomers.

Immigrants faced barriers and challenges to participating in the labour market. Language problems, lack of Canadian work experience and foreign credential recognition problems were the main hurdles. As time went on, some of the difficulties diminished (e.g. language problems) while some persisted (e.g. foreign credential recognition). However, after four years in Canada immigrants made significant progress in the labour market. Most immigrants found employment, and also showed movements towards higher-skilled occupations and occupations that were commensurate with their education/training.

Employment rates continually increased throughout the first four years for all immigration categories. Four years after landing, 68% of all the LSIC immigrants were employed. This employment to population ratio caught up with and surpassed the Canadian average employment rate at 62.7% in 2005. The unemployment rate, though staying high at 19% four years after landing, declined considerably from six months and two years after landing (37% and 28% respectively).

While immigrants from all categories made great progress in their initial Canadian labour market experience, skilled worker principal applicants were the most successful in the labour market, and skilled worker spouses and dependants and refugees made the biggest gains in employment growth.

Four years after landing, the majority of employed immigrants felt their specialization and skills were adequately used in the work. Compared to their pre-landing employment situation and two years after landing, the majority of immigrants felt their employment situation was the same or better four years after landing. Overall job satisfaction rose over time, with 86% of employed immigrants satisfied or very satisfied with their current jobs.

This report provides a comprehensive picture of the early labour market experience of recent immigrants to Canada. As a starting point, it also highlights the need for further research in order to explore and better understand the results. A closer look at the socio-economic determinants of labour market outcomes will inform on these research questions.

Notes

1 Picot, G., Hou, F. & Coulombe, S. (2007), “Chronic Low Income and Low-income Dynamics among Recent Immigrants”, Statistics Canada, January 2007.

2 Zietsma, D. (2007), “The Canadian Immigrant Labour Market in 2006: First Results from Canada’s Labour Force Survey”, Statistics Canada, September 10, 2007.

3 For introduction and background of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, please see “Microdata User Guide, Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, Wave 3”, Statistics Canada, 2007.

4 Research papers based on the previous two waves of the LSIC are available within CIC: Kustec, S. (2005), “Overview of the Employment Situation of New Immigrants Evidence from the First Wave of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC) – Six Months After Arrival”, Citizenship and Immigration Canada; Xue, L. (2006), “The Labour Market Progression of the LSIC Immigrants – A Perspective from the Second Wave of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC) – Two Years After Landing”, Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

5 The employment rates and job satisfaction over time will be discussed in the later sections in the paper.

6 During the first wave period, 73% of refugees took part in educational courses or language training whereas 46% of all the LSIC immigrants participated in education or language training.

7 Statistics Canada (2006), “Canadian Internet Use Survey (2005)”, The Daily, August 15, 2006.

8 Picot, G., Hou, F. and Coulombe, S. (2007), “Chronic Low-Income and Low-Income Dynamics among Recent Immigrants”, Analytical Studies Research Paper Series, No. 294, Statistics Canada.

9 Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, tables 282-0002 and 282-0022 and Catalogue no. 71F0004XCB.

10 Source: Statistics Canada, CANSIM, tables 282-0002 and 282-0022 and Catalogue no. 71F0004XCB.

11 Zietsma, Danielle (2007), “The Canadian Immigrant Labour Market in 2006: First Results from Canada’s Labour Force Survey”, The Immigrant Labour Force Analysis Series, Statistics Canada.

12 The largest five CMAs refer to Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa-Gatineau and Calgary.

13 Except for the employment rate for immigrants who originated from North America. The employment rate for this group was lower than those for immigrants from many other areas. The low labour force participation rate for this group could explain some of the employment rate gaps.

14 The proportion of skilled worker principal applicants who worked in intended occupations was 41% and 38% at six months and two years after landing respectively. Although the proportion declined a bit over time, this should not be viewed as a negative employment outcome. The intended occupation was asked during Wave 1, and the intended occupation measurement here cannot capture the possible changes of occupational intentions over time. Thus the comparison across time should be interpreted with caution.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: